Pushed to the SSPX

[Lamentabili]

On Judas, I always found the words of Jesus rather compelling when he said that it was better that he had never been born. I can not imagine how that could be possible if Judas ever in eternity ended up in heaven.

Indeed there is the scriptural reference as well. I think the Catechism of Trent summed up how the Church interprets that passage.

 

[JReducation]

I am not trying to be disrespectful here. But don’t these rationalizations amount to archaism? VII did not call for a wholesale dumping of Church liturgy and tradition in favor of archaic practices - unless I am completely mistaken.

First, no disrespect taken. Second, archaism refers to the attempt to reproduce the early practices of the first Christians disregarding organic development. This is not a disregard for organic development. What we’re talking about here is an practice that was introduced into the Church by a particular religious order. The Franciscans never intended to make it a universal practice. It was originally a special permission that was granted to one religious order and it caught on as the order spread.

A good example would be the use of Nativity sets. This was not part of the organic development of the Church. It too was something that was introduced as a private devotion by St. Francis, as were the Stations of the Cross as we know them. These private devotions became popular as the order spread around the world. In other words, the tabernacle on the main altar, the Christmas cretch or the Stations of the Cross were never started by an official decree of the Church.

The Church saw these developments and saw that they were good; therefore, she encouraged them. They were later adopted as the norm. But the previous practice of having the tabernacle on the side or in a Blessed Sacrament chapel was never abbrogated. In most abbey churches the practice continued even to this day. The two practices have co-existed since the 13th century. One is Franciscan and the other Benedictine. That’s the case for the Roman Church. The Eastern Churches have a different practice.

We have to very careful not to make universal statements that this must be this way and no other, because we are many Churches with many traditions. If we were to say that the tabernacle has to go back to the side, because that’s the way it was before the 13th century, that would be archaism. Unless the decree came from the Holy See.

Even for the Franciscans, Francis never wrote it into our rule that we had to place the tabernacle in the center. However, he does write at great length about devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. He wrote the famous prayer that we often say and most people don’t know where it came from.

“We adore you and we bless you, Oh Lord, here and in all your churches throughout the whole world, because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.” We say that every time we come before the Blessed Sacrament. Now THAT is in the rule. You must say that prayer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

I may be mistaken, but I believe the problem of archaism is when one goes back to the original way of doing this in the first century just for the purpose of going back. If the same reasons, or different ones, exist for returning to a practice, it is acceptable.

I think in the next decade we will see this principle played out. I suspect we may return to some element of the Mass before the changes of the last two generations. It will not be archaism because any changes will have a reason beyond just going back to get back to the good old days.

Thank you for the charitable correction.



ETA: And you too, Br JR

 

[JReducation]

I don’t believe one can dismiss these statements that easily. They are definitive statements of fact regarding the eternal fate of Judas made in an official Catholic Catechism. A catechism that was used as the gold standard to teach Catholics the faith for around 500 years. True, the purpose of the sections cited was not meant to be a treatise on Judas’ salvation, but the bolded sections serve to show that Judas’ eternal fate was well understood by the Church’s Magisterium.

The Catechism even draws the distinction that Cain perhaps despaired of salvation but Judas certainly did.

The following are extremely strong and definitive words by any standard in an official teaching document of the Magisterium. They leave no ambiguity. In my opinion the only reason people seem to ignore them is because they are never spoken of today and were issued long ago. If the same statements were made in the most recent Catechism, I don’t think there would be any doubt of the Church’s stance on Judas. And indeed, as far as the weight of the source and truth of the assertions, they may as well have been made by the current catechism.

“Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body.”

"that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction.

I don’t affirm or deny that Judas is in hell. In the end, it’s not as important as the fact that Teresa is trying to teach us, “We have all betrayed him.” The theology on sin and forgiveness that Teresa of Avila is trying to drive home is far more important to us than Judas’ whereabouts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I am not trying to be disrespectful here. But don’t these rationalizations amount to archaism? VII did not call for a wholesale dumping of Church liturgy and tradition in favor of archaic practices - unless I am completely mistaken.

For what it’s worth, excessive archaism was condemned by Pope Pius XII. Tearing down confessionals, statues, high altars, communion rails, and reverting to supposed ancient practices amongst other things in order to make a point was very excessive.

Archaism counters tradition in the sense that tradition comes from the word tradere, to hand down, specifically from hand to hand.

 

[nice2000]

This entire thread is very interesting.

I did some research. This is what I found.

It must be remembered that Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church. Communion in the hand is an exception to the law (it is an “indult”) which is not commanded but only allowed if all the conditions outlined by the Vatican are present. If the conditions are not present then the permission is not granted and Communion on the tongue only is permitted. The seven conditions are based on two principles as the official document points out. These two principles are not something that the Pope could change even if he wanted to because they are based on Divine Revelation itself.

The first condition/principle is that every occasion of scandal is avoided.
The second principle which the Vatican document gives us is also based on Divine Revelation and cannot be changed by anyone not even the Pope himself because it is part of the unchanging Law of God.

History:

Did you know that Pope John Paul II clearly stated that he himself is against the practice of Communion in the hand. However, he was under the pressure of the progressive bishops, he had at times complied with their insistence of allowing it.
It is also a matter of public record that when in his opinion proper conditions did not exist, he has on many occasions exercised his right to refuse Communion in the hand.

Pope Benedict XVI asks that we take communion on the tongue. There are many Bishops that do not obey.

zenit.org/article-23028?l=english

Here are some good readings:

The Eucharist in the life of St. Margaret Mary by Joseph Dargaud
Jesus Our Eucharistic Love by Stefano M Manelli

 

[Bbigam]

I believe that I would be correct in saying that the Papal Altar in St. Peter’s Basilica does not have the Tabernacle on it - there is in fact a Blessed Sacrament Chapel that has a large and beautiful Tabernacle. I believe it has long been this way - long before Vatican II, probably since the Papal Altar was built.

That said, I am in general a huge proponent of having the Tabernacle centrally located on a High Altar in the sanctuary, and am quite happy that this is the case in my parish. We even use a tabernacle veil in the liturgical color.

 

[ProVobis]

Communion in the hand is not a scrilege. It’s not even a minor sin. Where did that come from?

Now I know you’re a recent convert. Touching the Body and Blood of Christ with your hands or even chewing on it was considered a sacrilege for well over a few centuries. Patens were used to catch all the microscopic particles which were (at least by attempts to do so) placed back in the ciborium. Of course, the modernists thought this was all silly and decided to torture traditionalists and do the self-communication bit without calling it self-communication and, dah, dah!! came communion in the hand. A little forcing the issue and the Vatican had no choice but to allow it. Still it is what it is and it is forbidden in a lot of places. But you knew that.

Second, deacons have always distributed communion in the Roman Rite. Deacons have never had their hands consecrated or anointed.

Maybe I’m not using the correct terminology here but don’t deacons have the sacrament of Holy Orders bestowed upon them which annoints their hands to allow them to distribute communion? They don’t have the power to consecrate until they become priests but they do fall they fall into the ordinary ministers of communion category with the priests.

I’ve seen deacons much more respectful of the consecrated hosts than the EMHCs. In fact in one parish I attend, the deacon uses the humeral veil to move the ciborium to the tabernacle upstairs. How many EMHCs do this?

 

[pnewton]

Pope Benedict XVI asks that we take communion on the tongue. There are many Bishops that do not obey.

Can you show what directive the bishops were given that you say they are disobeying? The article mentions no such thing.

 

[pnewton]

Now I know you’re a recent convert. Touching the Body and Blood of Christ with your hands or even chewing on it was considered a sacrilege for well over a few centuries. Patens were used to catch all the microscopic particles which were (at least by attempts to do so) placed back in the ciborium. Of course, the modernists thought this was all silly and decided to torture traditionalists and do the self-communication bit without calling it self-communication and, dah, dah!! came communion in the hand.

Modernists and the early Church and Martyrs. I do not suggest that just because the early Church had communion in the hand that we should, only that this is evidence that it is a disciplinary matter, not an objective sacrilege.

 

[JReducation]

Now I know you’re a recent convert.

As I said before, no I’m not a new convert. I’ve been a Catholic for a little over 40 years. But thanks for making me feel young again.

Touching the Body and Blood of Christ with your hands or even chewing on it was considered a sacrilege for well over a few centuries. Patens were used to catch all the microscopic particles which were (at least by attempts to do so) placed back in the ciborium. Of course, the modernists thought this was all silly and decided to torture traditionalists and do the self-communication bit without calling it self-communication and, dah, dah!! came communion in the hand. A little forcing the issue and the Vatican had no choice but to allow it. Still it is what it is and it is forbidden in a lot of places. But you knew that.

Touching the host was never declared a sin. I was a popular belief, not a formal teaching of the Church. Aquinas wrote about this and many people picked up on it. But the Church never adopted Aquinas position as its oficial position. There were several reasons why not, the most compelling was the enclosed nuns.

In Abbeys of enclosed nuns, the Abbess was often called upon to give communion to a nun who was sick, in danger of death and no priest could be found to bring communion. Abbesses always had this authority. They also had authority to expose the Blessed Sacrament and retire it. Oiur own nuns have been handling the Eucharist since the time of St. Clare herself and so have other orders of perpetual adoration.

The other reason I willl explain at the bottom.

Maybe I’m not using the correct terminology here but don’t deacons have the sacrament of Holy Orders bestowed upon them which annoints their hands to allow them to distribute communion? They don’t have the power to consecrate until they become priests but they do fall they fall into the ordinary ministers of communion category with the priests.

I’ve seen deacons much more respectful of the consecrated hosts than the EMHCs. In fact in one parish I attend, the deacon uses the humeral veil to move the ciborium to the tabernacle upstairs. How many EMHCs do this?

Only the hands of the priest are consecrated and annointed. When a man is ordained deacon, his hands are not consecrated or annointed. The annointing and consecrating of a priests hands is directly related to the consecration of the bread and wine, not the distribution of communion.

It was for this reason that Aquinas argument did not hold up. If the Church has held that only consecrated hands could touch the host and all others committed a sin, it would have to ban the deacon from distributing communion. From the early Church to the Middle Ages, the permanent deacons were much more numerous than they were from the Middle Ages to the 20th century. They distributed communion, just like they do today. There were also transitional deacons. But they did not have their hands consecrated either. It’s not part of the ordination rite. That’s why Aquinas belief was only adopted by the multitudes, but never by the Magisterium. It has never been an official moral teaching of the Church.

There were many things that we did because of tradition with lower case t.

Obviously, any kind of abuse of the Blessed Sacrament is a sacrilege. There is no doubt about that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Br JR,

I do enjoy conversing with you! I certainly understand that one will (should) find a precedence for these innovations. I am always drawn back to the same question: Why, after 800 years, do we change if not to give greater glory to God. And if we are not giving greater glory to Our Lord, then why change. And if we are giving greater Glory to God, how is that manifest in these changes?

I don’t know the answer, I don’t expect that you know, and no one else has been able to frame it in a way to get through to someone as dense as I.

God Bless

GTO

I think what happens is that man in his never ending search for the Transcendent makes different attempts to reach further into the spiritual life. As human beings, we can only do so through ritual and symbols. History has proven that when the world becomes unstable, Christians have tried to find new ways to hang on to God, sort of hanging on to their spiritual sanity. This is what often gives birth to changes and experiments. Some are good and others are not so good.

The most important thing is to preserve the revealed truth. The rest we can fix. But if we distort truth, we can do irreperable damage. We can move things from point X to Y and back again. But it is much more difficult to recover from the damage of sin. Fortunately for us, God is much more merciful than we are. We have a tendency to go for justice: a tooth for a tooth. God has a tendency to bypass justice and go for mercy: redemption from sin.

Whether people change something that is 800 years old or not is less important, in the long run, than our willingness to be merciful toward each other for our pitiful attempts to find God. I don’t use pitiful in a bad way. Our attempts are pitiful, because of our human limitations. Compared to God’s greatness.

Maybe that is one of the positives here. When we do make changes that are less than helpful, God somehow finds a way to reach us. It is this reality that proclaims God’s greatness and glory. God can and does reach us, despite whatever we do. This is not a license to go crazy. But it should serve as a consolation, as St. Teresa of Avila would say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bpbasilphx]

\The annointing and consecrating of a priests hands is directly related to the consecration of the bread and wine, not the distribution of communion.\

**In the late 40’s-early 50’s, Ven Pius XII defined that the major orders of Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episcopacy were conferred by the imposition of the Bishop’s hands.

The anointing of the priest’s hands–howsoever appropriate–therefore cofers nothing, as the Mystery of Orders has already been bestowed.

The rite can be seen here. The actual consecratory formula is said before it, as you see.

sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/40-the-sacrament-of-holy-orders-rite-of-priestly-ordination.html

BTW–I do not have access to the present post concilar rite. This is the rite as of 1962, from a trustworthy source.

One reason he said this is that there is NO anointing in the Byzantine rites of ordination, nor traditio instrumentorum. But would anyone deny that Patriarch Lubomir or Patriarch Gregory are true bishops, and their priests true priests?

This, btw, can be seen here:

antiochian.org/midwest/the-ordination-of-a-priest**

 

[JReducation]

Here is the prayer of the consecration of hands.

That whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Deacons don’t bless or consecrate. Therefore, their hands are not consecrated.

Rememer, this only applies to the Roman Rite. It does not apply to the Eastern Churches, Catholic or Orthodox. Their rite of ordination is very different.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spn82756]

I have to admit that I understood why that question was asked. You first derided traditional expressions of piety then bragged about how loudly you say “AMEN” when you receive the Sacrament, etc. If someone in the normal OF communion line said “AMEN” loud enough for me to hear it if I am not directly behind them, I’d find it distracting and odd.

Fortunately, that is not an issue in the Extraordinary Form because we don’t say “Amen” when we receive – unless we are visitors from the OF who don’t know any better.

I didn’t brag about anything. SSPX people have rediculed the new Mass. You know the correct way to worship. I didn’t say that I yelled. I said it could be heard…not muffled.

And since you don’t say amen…then I guess it’s wrong for the rest of us.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve been thinking. There is a light side to this discussion. That is that we must all be half crazy. This debate over the SSPX has been going on in these forums since the creation of Adam, as if we could really resolve it.

The best that we can do is work toward the perfection of charity and let those who can resolve this problem do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ibkc]

And since you don’t say amen…then I guess it’s wrong for the rest of us.

I have no idea what that’s even supposed to mean. In the Extraordinary Form, we don’t say “amen” after we receive. It’s just how it is. No more and no less.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Touching the host was never declared a sin. I was a popular belief, not a formal teaching of the Church. Aquinas wrote about this and many people picked up on it. But the Church never adopted Aquinas position as its oficial position…

…That’s why Aquinas belief was only adopted by the multitudes, but never by the Magisterium. It has never been an official moral teaching of the Church.

Aquinas’ position was indeed an official teaching of the Church. And what St. Thomas taught was merely Catholic Tradition… He did not make it up. The teaching pre-dated him,

The current method of standing, receiving communion in the hand and then self-communicating was never practiced in the Catholic Church, only by Protestant heretics.

See references below…

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

 

[spn82756]

Aquinas’ position was indeed an official teaching of the Church. And what St. Thomas taught was merely Catholic Tradition… He did not make it up. The teaching pre-dated him,

The current method of standing, receiving communion in the hand and then self-communicating was never practiced in the Catholic Church, only by Protestant heretics.

See references below…

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Duly noted. I may have to change how I receive the Eucharist.

Thanks

 

[stevusmagnus]

Duly noted. I may have to change how I receive the Eucharist.

Thanks

Thanks be to God! I think you will find a deeper sense of reverence receiving Our Lord on the tongue from the priest, kneeling if possible as Pope Benedict wishes.

One of the reasons the Protestants started to distribute communion in the hand was to de-emphasize the belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. This practice, by its nature, lends itself to reducing reverence and belief in the Real Presence. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. How we pray is how we believe. Is it any wonder belief in Transubstantiation amongst Catholics plummeted after this practice and the New Mass were installed? Notice these irreverent practices are always only “tolerated” by the Holy See. The Holy See will never mandate you to perform irreverent acts, however it is possible that Rome will tolerate them just as Moses tolerated divorce in the Old Testament. Altar Girls, EM’s, CITH, secular music, barren church buildings, risifixes and bare crosses, tabernacle hidden…all of these things are tolerated, but are not good for the soul. They all lead, little by little, to a reduced sense of reverence and a reduced belief that the Mass is truly a propitiatory sacrifice.

If there is a Traditional Latin Mass near you, try attending it exclusively for a month and see if it does not increase your sanctity, reverence, and piety. It worked for St. Therese, St. John Vianney, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis, etc. etc. etc.